Support NeoGAF

[Steve McQueen]

only 360 owner here
played unchared 2,3 gow3 on my friends ps3

i think visually no 360 games beats them

Mind you, it's also that Sony first party devs are able to extract more out of the machine. Imo, Naughty Dog and Santa Monica could have made their PS3 games als on 360. They got skills that make it possible. I don't think the 360 is less powerful, but that Sony first party studios can do magic on either console.

 

[leaf_]

We also knew the specs of 360 and Ps3, in fact even more detailed that we have now about Ps4 and xbone... And yet, pretty much everyone never saw it coming how 360 would hold up so well against the ps3...

Everybody cell it coming...

except you it seems.

 

[fastford58]

If it's subjective then clearly it's not an advantage.

Subjective as in your opinion is subjective, because there is no empirical basis to your assertion. Only the most biased fanboys would continue to argue this as the proof is out there for everyone to see.

This isn't some hidden sauce or secret GPU that can't be proven beyond E-Peen bickering; Many PS3 games are simply untouchable by 360 from a visual standpoint.

Those are the facts. Sorry you can't see it. I guess you will be happy with the "at par" visuals across PS4 and X1.

 

[IN&OUT]

True story about this interview:

I made poor Adam wait for me for like 20 min. I had totally underestimated the fact it was going to take me NEARLY AN HOUR to find parking at PAX. So I was totally frustrated, had been in a car in traffic for over 90 minutes, and was RUSHING into the convention center. I had just walked in, and had been keeping him and his crew waiting. So I sat down, and we rolled – no prep or anything. I’m surprised I didn’t come across as a complete buffoon given how cold I came into this.

I also found out this was going to be on-camera, which I’m not a big fan of, because, well… look at me. I have a face for Radio.

Anyway I appreciate the kind comments.

I’m not going to get into this PR thing again. There are clearly people who understand, and people who don’t. I’ve been a GAF member for a while, and was a reader long before that. I’ve been in gaming my entire professional career, and a player since videogames EXISTED. I come on GAF because I want to. I don’t get paid to post here or any other silly nonsense. Occasionally, the PR team will roll me out to do official interviews, which I’m not really a huge fan of doing.

Regarding the Kinect video I was talking about. There are several, but the one I like best is this. Also – this is now several months old. Latency is even better now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi5kMNfgDS4

Disc install – Turns out, at this point the speed and throughput of the consoles exceeds the transfer speeds of the disc. I don’t have the exact numbers, but the reason BOTH CONSOLES do mandatory installs is because you’d be actually giving up a ton of potential performance by bottlenecking the systems at the read speeds of the disc. Even on 360 games like GTAV are mandatory HDD installs – at this point reading from disc is just too slow. On top of which, the instant game switching feature goes away…

Performance: I’m not dismissing raw performance. I’m stating – as I have stated from the beginning – that the performance delta between the two platforms is not as great as the raw numbers lead the average consumer to believe. There are things about our system architecture not fully understood, and there are things about theirs as well, that bring the two systems into balance.

People DO understand that Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD. We CREATED DirectX, the standard API’s that everyone programs against. So while people laude Sony for their HW skills, do you really think we don’t know how to build a system optimized for maximizing graphics for programmers? Seriously? There is no way we’re giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony. And ANYONE who has seen both systems running could say there are great looking games on both systems. If there was really huge performance difference – it would be obvious.

I get a ton of hate for saying this – but it’s been the same EVERY generation. Sony claims more power, they did it with Cell, they did it with Emotion Engine, and they are doing it again. And, in the end, games on our system looked the same or better.

I’m not saying they haven’t built a good system – I’m merely saying that anyone who wants to die on their sword over this 30%+ power advantage are going to be fighting an uphill battle over the next 10 years…

I have tons of respect for you personally Albert, but we are NOT dumb.

Now you are saying that MS can offset a 40% GPU power just by pure programming wizardry?

if so then why MS didn't do the same with 360 (which had the better GPU and is easy to develop for) and yet I saw nothing on it that match the scale and graphics of TLoS or God of War?

also you last statement comes like bragging with no basis at all. you talk like Sony knows nothing about low level programming and don't forget that Direct X is one of many API available and one that was allegedly inferior to the likes of OpenGl.

I hold a big respect for youi but please, WE ARE NOT STUPID.

 

[Impeccable]

Okay, truthfully, I appreciate Albert being amongst us but the constant circle jerk every time he posts something as some sort of conversation ending statement is starting to get irritating.

Just because he posts his own companies beliefs, marketing and public relations through our forum amongst us doesn't mean it has any more clout than if it was a released statement through a third party site. To take his word (no offense, Albert) as the gospel because he supports your personal opinion on a subject is pretty short sighted.

I love people like Shahid and Albert who decide to play among the wolves but let's keep our eyes focused here; they work for these companies.

 

[Dead Prince]

oh shiiii ... dat hidden dGPU

unlocking the magical experience.

 

[Wynnebeck]

Seriously why GAF is amazing. Right from someone who knows; not a bunch of people who THINK they do.

Yes, I'm sure Albert is not trying to get the MS message across and isn't trying to sell people on Xbone. Right.

 

[Iacobellis]

I'm not assuming anyone is dumb. Not at all. I can understand based on what has been disclosed, why people are arriving at that conclusion.

I'm stating that not everyone knows all the facts. There are still a lot of important details about the platforms that are still unknown. I have many, many questions about what Sony is doing technically.

The question I posed earlier, and the statements I'm making now, will come out when we see the actual shipping boxes.

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%. Both systems are powerful. Both are capable of next-gen graphics. I'm merely saying the application of that performance will mean the actual difference will not be that great.

But how do you know we won't see a difference down the road? You can NEVER judge a console based on year one or two.

 

[kitch9]

Someone should tell MS that Sony's machine is the same as their's.

Just more powerful.

 

[miDnIghtEr20C]

People DO understand that Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD. We CREATED DirectX, the standard API’s that everyone programs against. So while people laude Sony for their HW skills, do you really think we don’t know how to build a system optimized for maximizing graphics for programmers? Seriously? There is no way we’re giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony. And ANYONE who has seen both systems running could say there are great looking games on both systems. If there was really huge performance difference – it would be obvious.

I get a ton of hate for saying this – but it’s been the same EVERY generation. Sony claims more power, they did it with Cell, they did it with Emotion Engine, and they are doing it again. And, in the end, games on our system looked the same or better.

I’m not saying they haven’t built a good system – I’m merely saying that anyone who wants to die on their sword over this 30%+ power advantage are going to be fighting an uphill battle over the next 10 years…

Awesome!

 

[evolution]

I'm not assuming anyone is dumb. Not at all. I can understand based on what has been disclosed, why people are arriving at that conclusion.

I'm stating that not everyone knows all the facts. There are still a lot of important details about the platforms that are still unknown. I have many, many questions about what Sony is doing technically.

The question I posed earlier, and the statements I'm making now, will come out when we see the actual shipping boxes.

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%. Both systems are powerful. Both are capable of next-gen graphics. I'm merely saying the application of that performance will mean the actual difference will not be that great.

Again your suggesting PS4 is more powerful

 

[Metalmurphy]

Do you really believe the stuff that you typed there?

Yeah, he didn't sound angry to me.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%. Both systems are powerful. Both are capable of next-gen graphics. I'm merely saying the application of that performance will mean the actual difference will not be that great.

Looks like you guys are hearing some good stuff from third party devs then? Nice.

 

[Freki]

I'm not assuming anyone is dumb. Not at all. I can understand based on what has been disclosed, why people are arriving at that conclusion.

I'm stating that not everyone knows all the facts. There are still a lot of important details about the platforms that are still unknown. I have many, many questions about what Sony is doing technically.

The question I posed earlier, and the statements I'm making now, will come out when we see the actual shipping boxes.

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%. Both systems are powerful. Both are capable of next-gen graphics. I'm merely saying the application of that performance will mean the actual difference will not be that great.

Oh boy - I am eagerly awaiting comparisons of 1st and especially 2nd gen multiplat games...

 

[Carnby]

...

So much contempt and denial.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I'm not assuming anyone is dumb. Not at all. I can understand based on what has been disclosed, why people are arriving at that conclusion.

I'm stating that not everyone knows all the facts. There are still a lot of important details about the platforms that are still unknown. I have many, many questions about what Sony is doing technically.

The question I posed earlier, and the statements I'm making now, will come out when we see the actual shipping boxes.

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%. Both systems are powerful. Both are capable of next-gen graphics. I'm merely saying the application of that performance will mean the actual difference will not be that great.

You may understand your HW and I take your word on that but you have no idea how all the ins and outs of PS4 work. We have hard numbers. We know MSFT has upped the clocks on the CPU and GPU.

You can't downplay the performance advantage when Major Nelson made that post years back championing the supposedly superior 360. In fact, it might have been for it not for the 1st party offerings that showed the PS3's potential. For most 3rd parties, it was a pain to work for. The difference this time is we know PS4 is more powerful. There is no mincing words when stating that.

 

[nib95]

People DO understand that Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD. We CREATED DirectX, the standard API’s that everyone programs against. So while people laude Sony for their HW skills, do you really think we don’t know how to build a system optimized for maximizing graphics for programmers? Seriously? There is no way we’re giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony. And ANYONE who has seen both systems running could say there are great looking games on both systems. If there was really huge performance difference – it would be obvious.

I get a ton of hate for saying this – but it’s been the same EVERY generation. Sony claims more power, they did it with Cell, they did it with Emotion Engine, and they are doing it again. And, in the end, games on our system looked the same or better.

To clarify...

1. Every generation Microsoft claims the same, except this one where the lines are blurred because you can't, so instead you guys have gone around the bush way of dealing with it, by misinforming or fluffing with cloud figures ranging from 40x the performance and discussing transistor counts (5 billion!) instead of actual specs, like the former even matters. That and eluding to things that you've neither explained nor can be proven.

2. The PS3 was not strictly more powerful than the 360. The 360 had the better GPU (which Microsoft themselves championed), the PS3 the far better CPU. The 360 also enjoyed unified ram and more ram at that. The situation is not at all the same this time around. The PS4 has better raw performance, unified ram and more ram bandwidth (with respect to the main bulk of DDR3 vs GDDR5). According to some developers it also has more mature dev tools and better customisations. Then there's the OS footprint, which this time around is purported to be smaller on the PS4.

3. You talk about DirectX and API's, but you have to realise, low level coding and working beyond the constraints of said API's is what has given Sony the ability to lead the charge on graphics and tech with first party games this generation. With the PS3 notably, where despite the GPU deficit, the most technically and graphically proficient games were on the PS3. And where on the PS2, despite a massive hardware disadvantage to the Xbox, the PS2 still had games that could compete (such as GOW2, GT4 etc).

In other words, sometimes such API's actually hold developers back instead of the opposite, which thankfully Microsoft is somewhat understanding this time around which is why you're allowing lower level access on the Xbox One.

In other words, I don't know if the Direct X API thing is one that effectively champions your point.

 

[reynal1287]

Believe in our wizard programmers, forget the specs. It's magic

I like Albert, but this is what i got from his post.

 

[krioto]

Seriously why GAF is amazing. Right from someone who knows; not a bunch of people who THINK they do]

Huh - PR guy talks PR drivel

 

[Kusagari]

I respect Albert but I'll take his views on the power gap with a grain of salt.

 

[benny_a]

I'm not assuming anyone is dumb. Not at all. I can understand based on what has been disclosed, why people are arriving at that conclusion.

I'm stating that not everyone knows all the facts. There are still a lot of important details about the platforms that are still unknown. I have many, many questions about what Sony is doing technically.

Are there big conceptual things you're missing from what Sony is doing technically or is it more a implementation question? We've had Mark Cerny explain the modification they've done since April in comparatively in-depth interviews and articles with Gamasutra and DigitalFoundry.

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%.

I'm under the impression that we haven't seen any multiplatform game shown both on PS4 and Xbox One.
You may have, but publicly anything that is coming out on Xbox One and PS4 was either shown off on PC or on PS4. (Examples include: Need For Speed Rivals, Battlefield 4, Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed 4)

 

[RedRooster]

I hope I'll still have fun playing the games on such an inferior system! Cuz if I don't have any fun in the first 6 months, I might end up regretting spending a couple day's pay on a toy.

 

[Wynnebeck]

Not true at all. The main titles that are visually great on ps3 are kz,gow and uc,for xbox its halo 4 and gears 3 along with alan wake. They are all comparable, gears 3 looks better than uc to me.

Alan Wake shouldn't be in that list for obvious reasons. It's not very good looking. I'll give you Halo 4 and Gears 3. As for Gears 3 looking better than UC, well yeah. UC was at the beginning of the generation. UC2 and 3 however....

 

[gamemadmax]

Mind you, it's also that Sony first party devs are able to extract more out of the machine. Imo, Naughty Dog and Santa Monica could have made their PS3 games als on 360. They got skills that make it possible. I don't think the 360 is less powerful, but that Sony first party studios can do magic on either console.

People DO understand that Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD. We CREATED DirectX, the standard API’s that everyone programs against.

.

 

[DC1]

Ugh, console wars......

Why do ppl feel the need to defend a company that doesn't care about them at all? Is it because they cant afford both and feel the need to defend their choice?

It's not defending a company but rather. ..defending their original choice.

It's a spiral of despair.

True rejection (born from freedom) is what I practice. I'm happy and can't wait for next generation.

 

[Syphon Filter]

Subjective as in your opinion is subjective, because there is no empirical basis to your assertion. Only the most biased fanboys would continue to argue this as the proof is out there for everyone to see.

This isn't some hidden sauce or secret GPU that can't be proven beyond E-Peen bickering; Many PS3 games are simply untouchable by 360 from a visual standpoint.

Those are the facts. Sorry you can't see it. I guess you will be happy with the "at par" visuals across PS4 and X1.

Those aren't facts at all. There isn't one that looks better than the other, i'm being sincere about it. Your opinion as anyone else is subjective as well.

 

[RedNumberFive]

I'm not assuming anyone is dumb. Not at all. I can understand based on what has been disclosed, why people are arriving at that conclusion.

I'm stating that not everyone knows all the facts. There are still a lot of important details about the platforms that are still unknown. I have many, many questions about what Sony is doing technically.

The question I posed earlier, and the statements I'm making now, will come out when we see the actual shipping boxes.

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%. Both systems are powerful. Both are capable of next-gen graphics. I'm merely saying the application of that performance will mean the actual difference will not be that great.

Fair enough. Then what's in the secret sauce that's narrowing this gap?

XB1
GPU: 1.31 Teraflops
16 ROPs
12 compute units

PS4
GPU: 1.84 Teraflops
32 ROPs
18 compute units

 

[El_Chino]

I don't get all these "LOL Albert, this is PR and Microsoft pays your bills" posts. Obviously he works for Microsoft, what do you expect? He comes in and tries to answer your concerns and defend his product, yet he is still ridiculed.

 

[Killing_Joke]

Seriously why GAF is amazing. Right from someone who knows; not a bunch of people who THINK they do.

I honestly don't get posts like this. So Cerny and friends are just full of shit? Albert who isn't even on the HW team says numbers are nothing. So therefore it's true?

Why should i believe Albert over Cerny?

 

[Barzul]

I'm not assuming anyone is dumb. Not at all. I can understand based on what has been disclosed, why people are arriving at that conclusion.

I'm stating that not everyone knows all the facts. There are still a lot of important details about the platforms that are still unknown. I have many, many questions about what Sony is doing technically.

The question I posed earlier, and the statements I'm making now, will come out when we see the actual shipping boxes.

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%. Both systems are powerful. Both are capable of next-gen graphics. I'm merely saying the application of that performance will mean the actual difference will not be that great.

*tinfoil hat on* But what if that dGPU stuff is true lol, would certainly be interesting.

 

[Syphon Filter]

Alan Wake shouldn't be in that list for obvious reasons. It's not very good looking. I'll give you Halo 4 and Gears 3. As for Gears 3 looking better than UC, well yeah. UC was at the beginning of the generation. UC2 and 3 however....

When i say uc, i mean uc 3.

 

[Fresh Face]

No. Just no. Alan Wake on the same level of GoW3 or KZ3? Not even close. Geez.

You are horribly wrong actually. You're looking at how good the game looks artistically and as a representation of real life than how impressive it actually is.

Halo 4 runs at 720p, a solid 30 fps, and with some Anti-aliasing (with a very good upscaler). It also has a farther draw distance I believe, and the same resolution of textures as Killzone (and better). The vegetation and particle effects are also more complex.

I can't believe there is a person in 2013 still claiming that the ps3 had better graphics. They were very much equal. Yes, you could honestly get uncharted to run on a 360 and look quite as good.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I dunno, Mark Cerny seems pretty confident about the PS4 architecture gains over PC:

The "supercharged PC architecture," that the team has come up with -- to use Cerny's term -- is designed to offer significant gains the PC can't, while still offering a familiar technological environment for engineers.

Closed box and all that jazz.

If you think the PS4 is touching high-end PC hardware, I have an island to sell you for a helluva deal.

 

[fallingdove]

People DO understand that Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD. We CREATED DirectX, the standard API’s that everyone programs against. So while people laude Sony for their HW skills, do you really think we don’t know how to build a system optimized for maximizing graphics for programmers? Seriously? There is no way we’re giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony. And ANYONE who has seen both systems running could say there are great looking games on both systems. If there was really huge performance difference – it would be obvious.

How would you know what the competition was doing during the R&D cycle? Its not like you could have built your box after Sony confirmed their specs. Give me a break Albert. Can we stop with the double talk - one minute we hear that Xbone is not going to try and compete in its specs, now you are saying, there is no way that Microsoft would allow Sony to have a 30%+ power advantage. You guys have done so many 180s that you are dizzy and confused.

 

[ElTorro]

I'm stating that not everyone knows all the facts. There are still a lot of important details about the platforms that are still unknown. I have many, many questions about what Sony is doing technically.

Honest question, if you yourself don't know the details about Sony's system architecture, how can you be so sure that the details of both system architectures will balance the real-world performance, when the raw numbers show a non-trivial delta?

Comparing multiplatform launch games that are still in development does not seem like the most reliable metric here.

 

[twobear]

only 360 owner here
played unchared 2,3 gow3 on my friends ps3

i think visually no 360 games beats them

I don't disagree, but it's three games. Out of the many hundreds of games released there are three (at least, less than ten) games that look like they feasibly might not be possible on 360, and the vast majority of multiplatforms look and run better on 360.

I think the general thrust of what he's saying holds up.

Of course, this situation is in no way extrapolatable to this generation.

 

[Syphon Filter]

Fair enough. Then what's in the secret sauce that's narrowing this gap?

XB1
GPU: 1.31 Teraflops
16 ROPs
12 compute units

PS4
GPU: 1.84 Teraflops
32 ROPs
18 compute units

To be fair John Carmack said both will be identical.

 

[BadAss2961]

Not true at all. The main titles that are visually great on ps3 are kz,gow and uc,for xbox its halo 4 and gears 3 along with alan wake. They are all comparable, gears 3 looks better than uc to me.

Totally disagree, especially with Alan Wake. I played that shit maxed out on PC, there's nothing special about it graphically.

 

[Wynnebeck]

When i say uc, i mean uc 3.

Now you've gone off the deep end sir. lol

 

[Rustle Da Jimmies]

Albert's opposers have now resorted to posting:

The same gifs

The same snarky remarks

And the same copy/paste, rinse/repeat comments.

This is entertaining.

Continue...

 

[hawk2025]

I'm not assuming anyone is dumb. Not at all. I can understand based on what has been disclosed, why people are arriving at that conclusion.

I'm stating that not everyone knows all the facts. There are still a lot of important details about the platforms that are still unknown. I have many, many questions about what Sony is doing technically.

The question I posed earlier, and the statements I'm making now, will come out when we see the actual shipping boxes.

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%. Both systems are powerful. Both are capable of next-gen graphics. I'm merely saying the application of that performance will mean the actual difference will not be that great.

I don't understand how these two comments are compatible.

Furthermore, the implication of your initial post is that games would be equal or greater on the Microsoft machine. Actual different "will not be that great" is a significantly different claim.

Like you said though, the proof will be in the pudding once we are a couple of years into the generation, and both first and third party devs have explored the consoles further. Until then, your statements are very assured given that you say yourself you still have many questions with respect to the PS4's technical abilities.

 

[anexanhume]

To be fair John Carmack said both will be identical.

He also plainly admitted he hadn't really looked into them.

Performance: I’m not dismissing raw performance. I’m stating – as I have stated from the beginning – that the performance delta between the two platforms is not as great as the raw numbers lead the average consumer to believe. There are things about our system architecture not fully understood, and there are things about theirs as well, that bring the two systems into balance.

Because they're not programmed to capitalize on the difference. You guys are using the same CPUs and GPUs, so any architectural failings would be present in both. The most obvious reason for the difference being less than the raw numbers would be if the PS4's extra capability is somehow bottlenecked to not be a one for one gain. We don't know if that's the case, but we do know it was designed to not be, according to Cerny.

People DO understand that Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD. We CREATED DirectX, the standard API’s that everyone programs against. So while people laude Sony for their HW skills, do you really think we don’t know how to build a system optimized for maximizing graphics for programmers? Seriously? There is no way we’re giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony. And ANYONE who has seen both systems running could say there are great looking games on both systems. If there was really huge performance difference – it would be obvious.

If MS wasn't scared of the potential technical advantage, why did they feel the need to announce that they were upclocking the GPU, CPU and exposing more to-the-metal access in the graphics APIs?

Sony's ICE team is no slouch either and they have their own proprietary shader language closer to openGL, which is often ahead of directX in adopting new features. Valve also reported superior performance on Linux for Left 4 Dead after optimizing to openGL. So I don't think DirectX is the be all end all of graphics APIs.

I get a ton of hate for saying this – but it’s been the same EVERY generation. Sony claims more power, they did it with Cell, they did it with Emotion Engine, and they are doing it again. And, in the end, games on our system looked the same or better.

I don't think Sony kept claiming that about EE after Xbox came out. Also, TLoU would like a word with everything that's been on the Xbox Unless we're only talking about multi-plats.

I’m not saying they haven’t built a good system – I’m merely saying that anyone who wants to die on their sword over this 30%+ power advantage are going to be fighting an uphill battle over the next 10 years…

It is mostly a pointless battle, but why do you feel the need to address it?

Correct, we did say that. And, according to every PC gamer here, neither did Sony.

Translation: I believe there are core PC gamers who will tell you that neither system targeted the highest-end graphics.

I think that's pretty disingenuous. You were both governed by a BOM cost for the console, a relative size, TDP budget, etc. Instead of getting more raw performance, MS chose a bandwidth mitigation strategy that lowered initial cost and had favorable cost reductions over the life of the console. Sony put as much GPU performance as they could inside their budgets (die size budget and TDP budget).

 

[squidyj]

The most obvious point is that anyone looking at games on both platforms do not see ANY difference, let alone this alleged 30% - 40%.

I guess we'll see if this holds true.

 

[Uno Venova]

I honestly don't get posts like this. So Cerny and friends are just full of shit? Albert who isn't even on the HW team says numbers are nothing. So therefore it's true?

Why should i believe Albert over Cerny?

Marleyman is fully in Microsofts corner most of the time so that post wasn't a surprise. At the end of the day both companies are championing their hardware but the hard specs on paper, AMD and developers at Gamescom have all talked about a noticeable hardware advantage for the PS4. I find those sources more credible.

 

[gamemadmax]

You are horribly wrong actually. You're looking at how good the game looks artistically and as a representation of real life than how impressive it actually is.

Halo 4 runs at 720p, a solid 30 fps, and with some Anti-aliasing (with a very good upscaler). It also has a farther draw distance I believe, and the same resolution of textures as Killzone (and better). The vegetation and particle effects are also more complex.

I can't believe there is a person in 2013 still claiming that the ps3 had better graphics. They were very much equal. Yes, you could honestly get uncharted to run on a 360 and look quite as good.

why it is hard to accept ps3 1party games look better when it has been already proved
even the ms guy is in denial

 

[Fresh Face]

I have tons of respect for you personally Albert, but we are NOT dumb.

Now you are saying that MS can offset a 40% GPU power just by pure programming wizardry?

if so then why MS didn't do the same with 360 (which had the better GPU and is easy to develop for) and yet I saw nothing on it that match the scale and graphics of TLoS or God of War?

also you last statement comes like bragging with no basis at all. you talk like Sony knows nothing about low level programming and don't forget that Direct X is one of many API available and one that was allegedly inferior to the likes of OpenGl.

I hold a big respect for youi but please, WE ARE NOT STUPID.

Agreed. We aren't. But you see, that isn't all the reason's he cited. He also cited efficiency.

Explain then what he said in the interview: how is a 300 hp Porsche faster than a 700 hp corvette? THE NUMBERS DON'T LIIIIEEE1!!1!1!1! right?

 

[LiquidMetal14]

To be fair John Carmack said both will be identical.

Case closed then. I'm being sarcastic. Those specs still stand.

Albert's opposers have now resorted to posting:

The same gifs

The same snarky remarks

And the same copy/paste, rinse/repeat comments.

This is entertaining.

Continue...

What about the other side? If you want to contribute then please elaborate more than this passive whistle blowing.

 

[Piggus]

Performance: I’m not dismissing raw performance. I’m stating – as I have stated from the beginning – that the performance delta between the two platforms is not as great as the raw numbers lead the average consumer to believe. There are things about our system architecture not fully understood, and there are things about theirs as well, that bring the two systems into balance.

People DO understand that Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD. We CREATED DirectX, the standard API’s that everyone programs against. So while people laude Sony for their HW skills, do you really think we don’t know how to build a system optimized for maximizing graphics for programmers? Seriously? There is no way we’re giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony. And ANYONE who has seen both systems running could say there are great looking games on both systems. If there was really huge performance difference – it would be obvious.

I get a ton of hate for saying this – but it’s been the same EVERY generation. Sony claims more power, they did it with Cell, they did it with Emotion Engine, and they are doing it again. And, in the end, games on our system looked the same or better.

I’m not saying they haven’t built a good system – I’m merely saying that anyone who wants to die on their sword over this 30%+ power advantage are going to be fighting an uphill battle over the next 10 years…

Perhaps you guys should explain to your potential audience what's in your system that apparently bridges the gap between these two systems. Sony has been open about their system specs and Microsoft has not. The GPU and RAM advantages of the PS4 are there for everyone to see but Microsoft is not doing anything at all to dismiss the raw numbers or demonstrate WHY the numbers are deceiving. This is especially important considering the apparent lack of architectural differences of each system. If there's something in your system (such as extra chips for handling compute or some other level of customization) then why aren't you talking about it!? It's not like your competition can respond at this point. I mean you say that your company wouldn't let Sony get away with such an advantage but in the minds of gamers, that's exactly what you're doing. Making the assumption that they're "all bark and no bite" is probably not a good idea.

I appreciate that you're not on here spouting a bunch of PR BS but I (and I'm sure many others) would really appreciate a bit of transparency when it comes to the actual hardware. If you expect people to pay an extra $100 for your system, shouldn't we at least be allowed to know what's powering it and what puts it in line with the competition?

 

[digoutyoursoul]

Forget work, this thread is great

 

[nib95]

Honest question, if you yourself don't know the details about Sony's system architecture, how can you be so sure that the details of both system architectures will balance the real-world performance, when the raw numbers show a non-trivial delta?

Comparing multiplatform launch games that are still in development does not seem like the most reliable metric here.

Great point ElTorro, as always.